explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1634: In Case of Emergency

2024-09-16T07:51:05Z

172.68.186.57: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1634
| date = January 25, 2016
| title = In Case of Emergency
| image = in_case_of_emergency.png
| titletext = I keep first aid kits in those emergency lockers. Sure, it's expensive to have them installed in the wall, but at least for those ones there's no need to pay extra for safety glass.
}}

==Explanation==
[[File:1634 supplement.jpeg|thumb|A drink can behind glass]]
Sometimes in order to deter vandalism or avoid accidentally moving/setting off something of importance, an important item like a {{w|fire extinguisher}} will be covered behind a wall of glass. "In case of emergency, break glass" - and retrieve the tool.

However the depicted situation is funny, because the thing behind the breakable glass is a glass repair kit. This is ironic, considering that the only way to reach it is by breaking the glass. One might even use it to fix the glass broken to get it... This joke is similar in nature to a {{w|useless machine}}. However, the broken glass that needs to be repaired is an emergency situation, so it is important to have some less important glass to break, to be able to get to the important ''emergency glass repair kit''. In this way it is not necessarily useless, just ironic.

In the title text [[Randall]] notes that he keeps his {{w|first aid kit}} in just such a type of emergency locker as shown in the comic. He complains that it is expensive to have them installed in the wall. But then the title text takes a gruesome turn when he continues by saying that at least for those lockers with first aid in them there is no need to pay extra for using {{w|safety glass}} for the cover. Safety glass doesn't break into sharp shards, so would be used for the cover of such an above-mentioned fire extinguisher cabinet, for instance, ensuring that the user will not cut themselves when breaking the glass to retrieve it. But Randall indirectly says that since the person breaking the glass will soon have access to a first aid kit then, if wounded in the process of breaking the normal window glass, they can as well be treated on the spot - so it will be OK to let them get injured.

First aid kits and for instance {{w|defibrillators}} can be found at frequent places such as bus stations and shopping malls, but never behind a glass that needs to be broken.

==Transcript==
:[On a box behind a panel of glass, with a hammer hung below, is written:]
:Glass repair kit

{{comic discussion}}

2981: Slingshots

2024-09-05T09:44:15Z

172.68.186.57: /* Explanation */ Slight edit, and removal of a side-fact, preparatory to adding a Trivia section.

{{comic
| number = 2981
| date = September 4, 2024
| title = Slingshots
| image = slingshots_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x420px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my reboot, Dennis the Menace was just trying to send Mr. Wilson a nice comet, but accidentally wiped out his dinosaur garden.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a WRIST ROCKET SMUGGLED INTO MASSACHUSETTS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The {{w|Slingshot|slingshot}} (in this comic, styled "Regular Slingshot") is a hand-held device used for accelerating small projectiles, such as stones or steel balls. It has existed since ancient times, and has been used for personal defense and for hunting game such as squirrels, birds, and {{w|Goliath|Philistines}}.

The '''gravitational''' slingshot, or {{w|Gravity_assist|gravity assist}}, is not a device but a term used to describe how gravity may alter the path of an object in space, such as a spacecraft or an asteroid.

This comic humorously compares the two, in tabular format.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Regular slingshot
! Gravitational slingshot
|-
! Used for hunting
| ✓
| X
|-
! Used for sport shooting
| ✓
| X
|-
! Used for spacecraft propulsion
| X
| ✓
|-
! Large online enthusiast community
| ✓
| ✓
|-
! May have caused dinosaur extinction
| Probably not
| Maybe
|-
! Used by Dennis the Menace to terrorize Mr. Wilson
| ✓
| Not yet, but I'm pitching a reboot
|}

The first four categories accurately reflect reality. As a hunting tool (and as an offensive weapon), recent designs have been claimed to propel a projectile with [https://www.uslawshield.com/tactical-slingshots-mere-toy/ more force than .22 and .38 caliber pistols]. Consequently, several communities have prohibited the possession of such slingshots, which may be called "wrist rockets". The state of Massachusetts, where cartoonist Randall resides, is one of those communities.

The fifth category ventures into the absurd, at least with respect to "regular" slingshots, which did not exist (as humans, which invented them, did not) at the time of the {{w|Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event|Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event}}. However, it is possible, even likely, that the event resulted from a meteorite impact, with a gravitational slingshot perturbing the orbit of the space rock that crashed into the Earth.

The sixth category references the long-running comic and cartoon character {{w|Dennis_the_Menace_(U.S._comics)|Dennis the Menace}}, in which the titular character unintentionally harasses neighbor Mr. Wilson with (regular) slingshots and other devices and behaviors. In Randall's projected reboot of the franchise, which is elaborated on in the title text, Dennis trades his regular slingshot for a gravitational slingshot. By miscalibrating his ammunition, or the force of his slingshot, he turns a demonstration ("a nice comet") into a destructive event (the loss of Wilson's dinosaur garden). The reference is to the relative size and velocity of the space objects responsible for, respectively, comets and "meteors" versus asteroid impacts.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Tables are bad? Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Regular slingshot
! Gravitational slingshot
|-
! Used for hunting
| ✓
| X
|-
! Used for sport shooting
| ✓
| X
|-
! Used for spacecraft propulsion
| X
| ✓
|-
! Large online enthusiast community
| ✓
| ✓
|-
! May have caused dinosaur extinction
| Probably not
| Maybe
|-
! Used by Dennis the Menace to terrorize Mr. Wilson
| ✓
| Not yet, but I'm pitching a reboot
|}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Charts]]
[[Category: Space]]
[[Category: Dinosaurs]]

2967: Matter

2024-08-08T12:03:55Z

172.68.186.57: 'substance' not well defined, in lay terms - exclusion essentially creates a minimum(ish) gap between ephemoral subatomic entities that creates the illusion of spongey-solidity, but that would be too long to properly describe without argument

{{comic
| number = 2967
| date = August 2, 2024
| title = Matter
| image = matter_2x.png
| imagesize = 234x341px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = He was the first person to land a 900, which is especially impressive because pulling off a half-integer spin requires obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOOFY FRONTSIDE WIKI GRIND TO SECRET PHYSICS DEMO TAPE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In {{w|skateboarding}}, the term "goofy" means to push with the left foot, using the {{w|Footedness#Goofy_stance|opposite stance}} to the supposedly standard stance of pushing with one's right foot. The comic uses those stances as an analogy for {{w|antimatter}} in particle physics, which has the opposite electrical charge of corresponding matter particles that will annihilate each other upon collision, releasing energy proportional to their combined mass. In this comic, famed professional skateboarder {{w|Tony Hawk}} has obtained a professorship in physics and is teaching this very non-standard concept. As Tony Hawk does not have a degree in physics,{{Citation needed}} teaching inaccurate lessons could be a likely pitfall of his gaining a professorship in real life. Hawk is also the subject of [[296: Tony Hawk]].

Unlike other distributions of 'handedness' in the natural world (chemical {{w|chirality}}, or the {{w|skewness}} of {{w|Multimodal distribution|bimodal statistics}} describing asymmetries in nature called {{w|homochirality}}), 'goofy-footed' skateboarders are about as common as those using standard footing. Thus the analogy indirectly raises the issue of {{w|baryon asymmetry}}, the observation that ordinary matter is very much more common than antimatter because there is so little evidence of annihilation throughout the universe. Baryon asymmetry is often thought to have resulted from fluctuations during {{w|Inflation (cosmology)|cosmological inflation}} between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds [https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251301 after the Big Bang], although there are several other candidate explanations of varying falsifiability.

The title text describes Hawk as the first person to "land a 900," meaning the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YYTNkAdDD8&t=1m30s successful completion] of {{w|900 (skateboarding)|a skateboarding trick}} that involves two and a half rotations (nine hundred degrees, as 2.5 × 360° = 900°). In physics, {{w|Spin (physics)|spin}} is a {{w|quantum number}} describing subatomic particles (see [[1862: Particle Properties]]), named in reference to the vaguely analogous ''but crucially distinct'' concept of {{w|angular momentum}} in classical physics. Obeying {{w|Fermi–Dirac statistics}} requires that the particles involved are {{w|fermion}}s, which include all of the electrons, protons and neutrons that compose the entirety of everyone's body and electrochemical state. Fermions all have {{w|half-integer}} (i.e., ...–1½, –½, ½, 1½...) {{w|spin quantum number}}s which do indeed include 2½, but only [https://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/s137 extremely rare particles] have a spin of 5/2. However, it's very important to remember that [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYeRS5a3HbE&ab_channel=ScienceClicEnglish quantum mechanical spin is ''not'' rotation, but instead how quickly the corresponding particle changes state when rotated.]

While everyone (and almost everything we ordinarily interact with except light and cosmic rays) is composed entirely of fermions, {{w|Boson#Composite bosons|any composite particle made of an even number of fermions, including entire atoms and their nuclei, are not fermions}} but {{w|boson}}s, which do ''not'' obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Luckily, landing a 900 does not actually require obedience to Fermi–Dirac statistics because a skateboarder composed entirely of bosonic atoms would still have fermionic electrons in the orbitals of those atoms and thus would still obey the far more macroscopically fundamental and consequential {{w|Pauli exclusion principle}}. That principle gives atoms and molecules, which are almost entirely empty space, a means to establish an 'in contact' separation distance. By maintaining a sense of physical volume and structure, it allows us to hold things, walk, make sound waves with our voices and allows (sufficiently skilled) skateboarders to land a 900.

==Transcript==
:[Tony Hawk (drawn with short hair) is gesturing at a narrow whiteboard on which illegible things are marked, what may be a Feynman diagram with one of the particle/antiparticle pair going into a circle (possibly representing a black hole, and thus depicting the popularized (incorrect) analogy for {{w|Hawking radiation}}), and at the bottom, a 2x3 table of illegible values.]
:Tony Hawk: In the standard model, regular matter will annihilate if it comes in contact with oppositely-charged ''goofy'' matter.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Tony Hawk becomes a physics professor

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Skateboard]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

Talk:1682: Bun

2024-08-08T10:48:28Z

172.68.186.57:

The transcript is almost done, but the setting/image of each frame has to be added, and someone may want to fix my possible typos. This is my first contribute to explain xkcd! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I added the explanations about the images. Thanks for contributing! [[User:Ladidootdoot|Ladidootdoot]] ([[User talk:Ladidootdoot|talk]]) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I'm pretty sure that student #1 is megan, someone may wanna check that out[[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.139|162.158.2.139]] 01:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I assumed this was about hair buns, am I incorrect? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25|173.245.54.25]] 11:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I also believed that 'bun' was also referring to hair buns/ponytails, thus giving a visual pun to the comic. It would also add another level of the 'heirarchy' pun as well. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.25|173.245.56.25]] 14:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's "bun" short for "bunny", an informal term meaning a rabbit (especially a cute one such as the ones shown in the comic). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 11:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wolves don't actually have as strong a hierarchical structure as commonly believed, and don't have so-called "alphas" running the pack. Wolf packs are primarily a family structure that centers around the parents, in a natural non-tyrannical way, with different wolves making decisions and leading the pack at various times depending on their particular skills. For more information on this, refer to writings by David Mech, wolf biologist, who first coined the terms "alpha" and "omega" for wolves, and has for years been trying to convince people that those original theories are incorrect. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.24}}

Of course, 'buns' are also a euphemism for butt, which might clarify a thing or two, or at least add a more amusing context. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.42}}

I also believe the comic makes more sense when taking that meaning (bun for buttocks/derrière...) into account. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.230|162.158.150.230]] 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)J

Except for the fact in the very first frame Ponytail uses it in the singular while using the pointer to draw attention to an image of an animal. Has *anyone* used 'bun' in its singular form to refer to buttocks? 'Bum', perhaps, but not 'bun'. Given the rest of the panel's contextual talk regarding the 'buns', that particular interpretation never entered my thoughts. I wonder if the interpretation regarding the derrière is seen more by those of a certain age, generation or geographic group, i.e: the way soda, cola, pop, 'soft drink' and Coke are regional and/or generational terms for a sugary carbonated drink product. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.36|162.158.69.36]] 07:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that this is absolutely just a personal gripe, but the website is called explain xkcd, not spell-out-everything-that-happens-in-xkcd.

In relevance, this seems to be satire of current-gen's obsession with (mis)spelling things that are cute incorrectly (see: smol, birb, doge) and the situation in the comic is a role-reversal, with the teacher being a (teen/tween/memer etc.) and the students are questioning the teacher's professionalism.

The point about 'rank' could of course be some fictional idea that a younger person could attach to a physical entity to make the world more fun and interesting or something idk.
I would add this theory, of course, but i have no idea what i'm even reading when i read this explanation and don't know where to add it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.161|108.162.250.161]] 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I absolutely agree I have slowly been editing different explanations to try to try to reflect this, but it is a very difficult and tedious process, if you can contribute do it. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 13:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:In the fictional rabbit-world of "Watership Down", larger rabbits are usually superior. However the story is about an unusual group in which a small rabbit, Fiver, is the "king." There is a telling scene of mistaken identity near the end in which attackers are scared off. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.60}}

Hierarchy is misspelled. Unless it's a convoluted pun on heir - hare (almost homophones) ? [[User:blagae|blagae]]
:A new version of the comic has been uploaded by now, with the misspelling corrected. So the heir-hare pun was probably unintentional. ([[User:blagae|blagae]]) 14:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

As soon as I read it, I was thinking 'bun' as in 'buttocks', yet there is no mention of that in the explanation? {{unsigned ip|108.162.218.41}}
:Added that in the explanation, but I'm not sure at all that this was intentional. When there are images of bunnies it is not necessarily something that would come into mind. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Smaller "buns" being higher valued -- confirms to me the reference to (male) buttocks -- but what no one else seems to have noticed is that "mammalogy" is a short distance from the non-word "mammology" (cf. mammogram) would be the study of breasts, another viewable body part. So the presumed confusion could be confused with mammalogy / mammology.... [[User:Asimong|Asimong]] ([[User talk:Asimong|talk]]) 06:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the explanations posted thus far seem off-the-mark to me. Especially the ones involving butts, I mean, c'mon... The comment above about "role-reversal" gets close to the heart of the joke (if any), though I think more than anything this strip is just Randall indulging his love for depicting people in roles of presumed authority spouting absurdities. (And for tiny bunnies, of course.) TBH, though, this one mainly gives the impression of being based on a private joke or conversation, or just referencing some meme I haven't seen yet. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.68.35|162.158.68.35]] 16:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
: I think it's an obscure reference. Buzzfeed has [https://www.buzzfeed.com/mattbellassai/the-most-important-bunny-gifs-on-the-internet The 33 Most Important Bunny GIFs On The Internet], which ''might'' be related to the "important bun" from [[1663]]. Maybe Ponytail teaches [https://twitter.com/hashtag/anatomyofthebun internet sociology], not biology, and she hasn't clarified that very well. [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 16:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say the entire "buttocks" link that is currently reflected in the description is a very poor fit. Clearly "this time of year" is referring to spring, when rabbits are most commonly seen darting around, and when rabbit kittens are most likely to be born/leave their nests. "The image of a king" clearly has nothing to do with Ponytail, as there is an image of a "king bun" on the screen. This is most definitely a reference to the treatment of images of monarchy. For example, in the UK it is illegal to deface images of the Queen. [[User:Fendletruck|Fendletruck]] ([[User talk:Fendletruck|talk]]) 16:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
:I concur. Delete any reference to explanation about buttocks, and only state that some may think of this, but given that there are images of bunnies this is probably more saying of the person who thinks of butts than of Randall... ;-) I will leave it up to others to do the deletion though. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wondering if there's any tie in to the ancient but not quite defunct alt.devilbunnies, which was about evils buns, their cuteness, and people under their evil sway. The teacher in this case would clearly qualify as a "symp" (bunny sympathizer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.77|108.162.219.77]] 17:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there are studies which show that cuteness in humans has certain evolutionary advantages for human babies and may affect how humans treat animals they perceive as cute. I was tempted to expound more upon this in the explanation but the explanation is no place for that. Cuteness in animals is both relative and a perception, it is subject to change from person to person based on past experiences and preferences, it is also affected by hormones and mood. It is not a defense mechanism, it does not protect against predators. I know the edit which first mentioned the fitness advantages of cuteness didn't state that it does protect against predators but in my original edit, where I first mentioned fitness, I was trying to include information relevant to the comic, not information which was absolutely correct. And even cuteness doesn't protect rabbits from human poaching as much as conservation does. In most places rabbits are pests and are dealt with just as rats and mice are now. But since I know that if I include information which is not one hundred percent absolutely correct in all situations it will eventually get edited, even if it makes the explanation clearer, I will not include this at the moment, to spare the exhaustive detail it will inevitably spawn.

In short, rabbits are delicious and things like to eat them, no matter how cute they may be. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 18:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

TIL: baby rabbits are called kittens. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 00:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone has missed the big joke here: They aren't attending introductory mammalogy, they're attending introductory MOMmalogy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.254|108.162.237.254]] 12:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
: Please explain? [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:: It's a mother getting excited about a cute thing and gushing about it. (And pestering her friends about it on social media.) Smaller buns 'rank' higher because their smallness makes them cuter in the eyes of the beholder (regardless of what the actual rabbits think about it). Meanwhile the students seem to have misread the course name. If it's not actually Introductory Mammalogy, what else would it be but Mommalogy? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.254|108.162.237.254]] 00:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
::: Thank you, I see what you mean. But I'm not convinced it's what Randall meant: his strips don't tend to be about parents, and if he wanted us to make that particular connection then I think he would have added much stronger signals. I mean, aside from the lecturer's hairstyle, which suggests they're female, what other evidence do you have that they're a mother? Or that social media is in any way related to this comic? [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 03:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

seriously, are you people trolling? I'm 100% sure this comic is about buttocks! ;)--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.103.163|188.114.103.163]] 14:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It definitely isn't. [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It feels like the comic is intentionally reversing several concepts rather than simply giving nonsense (higher rank is normally larger and level formality is reversed) {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.92}}

I, too, immediately picked up an undertone about butts. "This time of year" being spring, ladies often start wearing skirts and shorts after mostly longer clothes in the winter (especially in Mass. where Randall lives), and the occasional "bun" sighting is in fact a recognized annual recurrence. I think it has a place in the explanation as at least a wink-and-nod double entendre. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 17:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This comic just doesn't make sense. Randall had some half-ideas, none of them worked, and he just drew it anyway. I thought I was missing the joke so I came here and nobody here has an explanation that is a) internally consistent and b) funny. -[[User:Foobarbecue|Foobarbecue]] ([[User talk:Foobarbecue|talk]]) 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:Not all of his comics are done for humor, some are simply absurd. I think this is one of those ones which is simply absurd. Unfortunately within the first few days of a comic coming out it is unlikely that the explanation here will be complete or have any form of consistent tone or style. It will be debated and edited back and forth. Some will be over analyzed to the point that any humor or consistency will be strained out of them. It is better to wait a week or so for the buzz around a new comic to die down. In fact, I usually avoid the newest comics but, I happen to like rabbits. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

'''Better Comparison'''

As discussed above (and as currently indicated in the discussion) wolves are not a good contrast to rabbit social behavior. Can we think of a better one? I know many bugs, like termites, ants, and bees are all hierarchical, but I think we should choose some sort of vertebrate at least. Some suggestions of my own; Lions, Lemurs, Horses, can anyone else think of anything? Or should we find a way to reword the sentence altogether? [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 00:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: has this got anything to do with the iOS game currently the free game of the week in the app store, King Rabbit? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.219|162.158.34.219]] 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"King Bun" sounds like a World War 2-era euphemism for a Kaiser roll. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.68}}

As for Slavic word for rabbit meaning "Little King". I'm Czech myself, so I looked around for the etymology; found something on Czech wikipedia (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%A1l%C3%ADk_dom%C3%A1c%C3%AD#Etymologie), posting translated for your consideration:
(King - "král"; Rabbit - "králík", "-ík" can be used as a diminutive suffix, for example with "kůň" - horse, "koník" - little horse)
What does a rabbit to do with a king? Nothing, actually, but the words are still related. As rabbits were not native animals in Bohemia, our ancestors didn't have a name for them. When first rabbits were brought to Bohemia from Germany 13th-14th century, we also got their German name "das Kaninchen", a corruption of the Latin word "cuniculus". Because of phonetic similarity, the word "Kaninchen" was mixed with "Königchen", the diminutive form of "der König" - king, and the Czech word "králík" was born. {{unsigned ip|141.101.95.43}}

Czech and Russian are quite alike indeed. But in Russian there is no way a word for rabbit (кролик) be read as 'Little King', these aren't omonims either. For 'King' there's a word "Король" [kɐ.ˈro.lʲ] if you will use appropriate diminutive suffix, which is "-ёк" [ʲɵk] , you will end up with "Королёк" [kərɐˈlʲɵk] - 'kinglet' (a bird of Regulidae family) that is not a bunny, although it's really small too. Same as male horse - "Конь" [ˈkonʲ] belittles to word "Конёк" [kɐˈnʲɵk] and has a second meaning - 'roof skate'.
Well, one may combine russian word "Кроль" [kro.'lʲ] meaning either 'male rabbit' (depricated) or 'crawl' swimming style (modern), with diminutive "-ик" [ˈʲɪk] suffix and result will be "Кролик" [ˈkrolʲɪk] - 'Bunny' but in case of second meaning that's simply a pun.
So no, not in Russian, as source word was Polish "królik" which was formed same as Czech "králík". {{unsigned ip|141.101.80.35}}

At the risk of adding to the noise, I assumed the joke was in the course name: confusing the study of "mammals" with the study of "memes". Everything being taught is a memetic concept (in the modern sense of the word, at least). It seems the path of least resistance in terms of making the smallest change to turn an understandable scene into an absurd one. Randall uses this format a lot (i.e: the entire scene & meaning being changed simply by changing one key word). He's very punny. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.156|108.162.249.156]] 00:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to this comment thing hold your horses.
I was seeing bun as used in an online sort of "omigod look at the bun" kind of usage. Honestly, visit tumblr for a few minutes, search the tag #bun, everyone uses bun for bunny, rabbit, hare, etc. The hierarchy I thought was to be based on cuteness level, as the smaller the bun, the more bun is respected in these online circles, or by anyone, really. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.111|162.158.255.111]] 02:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Behold, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon_rabbit cinnamon bun]. [[User:Nyperold|Nyperold]] ([[User talk:Nyperold|talk]]) 23:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My belief is that she was in a classroom during an empty period, but some people were sent there mistakenly for the mammology course...perhapps Black Hat's doing. So she decided to go with it. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The king bun in panel 3 looks exactly like the one from [https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2916:_Machine#xt=0&yt=79 Machine], anyone else notice that? [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 19:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:More correctly, the one in [[2916]] would be the one looking like the one here in [[1682]]. There are a number of "cut'n'paste candidates" out there. They kay have been redrawn (you'd have to do a pixel by pixel analysis) but clearly inspired to use a past character-pose as an 'object' graphic in the likes of Machine or [[Garden]] or [[Throw]], or a handy personal-joke ''actual'' direct copy elsewhen. (Might be interesting to track down such (near-)duplications and their origins in a list, somewhere.)
:BTW, funny link you gave, there. For internal explainxkcd links, use [[]], like <code><nowiki>[[9876: Comic Title]]</nowiki></code> (or <code><nowiki>[[9876]]</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>[[Comic Title]]</nowiki></code>, if prepared to quote+reference just the redirected page to the former), or <code><nowiki>[[9876: Comic Title|actual link text]]</nowiki></code> if you want something else. The <code>[URL]</code> and <code>[URL actual link text]</code> format is for external things without another handy method (such as xkcd.com linking, or wikipedia, etc, which have other handy formats, here mostly being local templates that you can probably work out if you look around a bit). FYI, as I think I've seen you not realising this before. But general heads-up to other random readers/editors, even if you don't. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.57|172.68.186.57]] 10:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1682: Bun

2024-08-08T10:47:39Z

172.68.186.57:

The transcript is almost done, but the setting/image of each frame has to be added, and someone may want to fix my possible typos. This is my first contribute to explain xkcd! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.158|108.162.250.158]] 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I added the explanations about the images. Thanks for contributing! [[User:Ladidootdoot|Ladidootdoot]] ([[User talk:Ladidootdoot|talk]]) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I'm pretty sure that student #1 is megan, someone may wanna check that out[[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.139|162.158.2.139]] 01:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I assumed this was about hair buns, am I incorrect? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.25|173.245.54.25]] 11:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I also believed that 'bun' was also referring to hair buns/ponytails, thus giving a visual pun to the comic. It would also add another level of the 'heirarchy' pun as well. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.25|173.245.56.25]] 14:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's "bun" short for "bunny", an informal term meaning a rabbit (especially a cute one such as the ones shown in the comic). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 11:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wolves don't actually have as strong a hierarchical structure as commonly believed, and don't have so-called "alphas" running the pack. Wolf packs are primarily a family structure that centers around the parents, in a natural non-tyrannical way, with different wolves making decisions and leading the pack at various times depending on their particular skills. For more information on this, refer to writings by David Mech, wolf biologist, who first coined the terms "alpha" and "omega" for wolves, and has for years been trying to convince people that those original theories are incorrect. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.24}}

Of course, 'buns' are also a euphemism for butt, which might clarify a thing or two, or at least add a more amusing context. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.42}}

I also believe the comic makes more sense when taking that meaning (bun for buttocks/derrière...) into account. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.230|162.158.150.230]] 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)J

Except for the fact in the very first frame Ponytail uses it in the singular while using the pointer to draw attention to an image of an animal. Has *anyone* used 'bun' in its singular form to refer to buttocks? 'Bum', perhaps, but not 'bun'. Given the rest of the panel's contextual talk regarding the 'buns', that particular interpretation never entered my thoughts. I wonder if the interpretation regarding the derrière is seen more by those of a certain age, generation or geographic group, i.e: the way soda, cola, pop, 'soft drink' and Coke are regional and/or generational terms for a sugary carbonated drink product. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.36|162.158.69.36]] 07:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that this is absolutely just a personal gripe, but the website is called explain xkcd, not spell-out-everything-that-happens-in-xkcd.

In relevance, this seems to be satire of current-gen's obsession with (mis)spelling things that are cute incorrectly (see: smol, birb, doge) and the situation in the comic is a role-reversal, with the teacher being a (teen/tween/memer etc.) and the students are questioning the teacher's professionalism.

The point about 'rank' could of course be some fictional idea that a younger person could attach to a physical entity to make the world more fun and interesting or something idk.
I would add this theory, of course, but i have no idea what i'm even reading when i read this explanation and don't know where to add it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.161|108.162.250.161]] 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:I absolutely agree I have slowly been editing different explanations to try to try to reflect this, but it is a very difficult and tedious process, if you can contribute do it. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 13:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

:In the fictional rabbit-world of "Watership Down", larger rabbits are usually superior. However the story is about an unusual group in which a small rabbit, Fiver, is the "king." There is a telling scene of mistaken identity near the end in which attackers are scared off. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.60}}

Hierarchy is misspelled. Unless it's a convoluted pun on heir - hare (almost homophones) ? [[User:blagae|blagae]]
:A new version of the comic has been uploaded by now, with the misspelling corrected. So the heir-hare pun was probably unintentional. ([[User:blagae|blagae]]) 14:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

As soon as I read it, I was thinking 'bun' as in 'buttocks', yet there is no mention of that in the explanation? {{unsigned ip|108.162.218.41}}
:Added that in the explanation, but I'm not sure at all that this was intentional. When there are images of bunnies it is not necessarily something that would come into mind. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Smaller "buns" being higher valued -- confirms to me the reference to (male) buttocks -- but what no one else seems to have noticed is that "mammalogy" is a short distance from the non-word "mammology" (cf. mammogram) would be the study of breasts, another viewable body part. So the presumed confusion could be confused with mammalogy / mammology.... [[User:Asimong|Asimong]] ([[User talk:Asimong|talk]]) 06:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the explanations posted thus far seem off-the-mark to me. Especially the ones involving butts, I mean, c'mon... The comment above about "role-reversal" gets close to the heart of the joke (if any), though I think more than anything this strip is just Randall indulging his love for depicting people in roles of presumed authority spouting absurdities. (And for tiny bunnies, of course.) TBH, though, this one mainly gives the impression of being based on a private joke or conversation, or just referencing some meme I haven't seen yet. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.68.35|162.158.68.35]] 16:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
: I think it's an obscure reference. Buzzfeed has [https://www.buzzfeed.com/mattbellassai/the-most-important-bunny-gifs-on-the-internet The 33 Most Important Bunny GIFs On The Internet], which ''might'' be related to the "important bun" from [[1663]]. Maybe Ponytail teaches [https://twitter.com/hashtag/anatomyofthebun internet sociology], not biology, and she hasn't clarified that very well. [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 16:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say the entire "buttocks" link that is currently reflected in the description is a very poor fit. Clearly "this time of year" is referring to spring, when rabbits are most commonly seen darting around, and when rabbit kittens are most likely to be born/leave their nests. "The image of a king" clearly has nothing to do with Ponytail, as there is an image of a "king bun" on the screen. This is most definitely a reference to the treatment of images of monarchy. For example, in the UK it is illegal to deface images of the Queen. [[User:Fendletruck|Fendletruck]] ([[User talk:Fendletruck|talk]]) 16:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
:I concur. Delete any reference to explanation about buttocks, and only state that some may think of this, but given that there are images of bunnies this is probably more saying of the person who thinks of butts than of Randall... ;-) I will leave it up to others to do the deletion though. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Wondering if there's any tie in to the ancient but not quite defunct alt.devilbunnies, which was about evils buns, their cuteness, and people under their evil sway. The teacher in this case would clearly qualify as a "symp" (bunny sympathizer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.77|108.162.219.77]] 17:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there are studies which show that cuteness in humans has certain evolutionary advantages for human babies and may affect how humans treat animals they perceive as cute. I was tempted to expound more upon this in the explanation but the explanation is no place for that. Cuteness in animals is both relative and a perception, it is subject to change from person to person based on past experiences and preferences, it is also affected by hormones and mood. It is not a defense mechanism, it does not protect against predators. I know the edit which first mentioned the fitness advantages of cuteness didn't state that it does protect against predators but in my original edit, where I first mentioned fitness, I was trying to include information relevant to the comic, not information which was absolutely correct. And even cuteness doesn't protect rabbits from human poaching as much as conservation does. In most places rabbits are pests and are dealt with just as rats and mice are now. But since I know that if I include information which is not one hundred percent absolutely correct in all situations it will eventually get edited, even if it makes the explanation clearer, I will not include this at the moment, to spare the exhaustive detail it will inevitably spawn.

In short, rabbits are delicious and things like to eat them, no matter how cute they may be. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 18:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

TIL: baby rabbits are called kittens. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 00:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone has missed the big joke here: They aren't attending introductory mammalogy, they're attending introductory MOMmalogy. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.254|108.162.237.254]] 12:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
: Please explain? [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 12:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:: It's a mother getting excited about a cute thing and gushing about it. (And pestering her friends about it on social media.) Smaller buns 'rank' higher because their smallness makes them cuter in the eyes of the beholder (regardless of what the actual rabbits think about it). Meanwhile the students seem to have misread the course name. If it's not actually Introductory Mammalogy, what else would it be but Mommalogy? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.254|108.162.237.254]] 00:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
::: Thank you, I see what you mean. But I'm not convinced it's what Randall meant: his strips don't tend to be about parents, and if he wanted us to make that particular connection then I think he would have added much stronger signals. I mean, aside from the lecturer's hairstyle, which suggests they're female, what other evidence do you have that they're a mother? Or that social media is in any way related to this comic? [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 03:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

seriously, are you people trolling? I'm 100% sure this comic is about buttocks! ;)--[[Special:Contributions/188.114.103.163|188.114.103.163]] 14:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It definitely isn't. [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It feels like the comic is intentionally reversing several concepts rather than simply giving nonsense (higher rank is normally larger and level formality is reversed) {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.92}}

I, too, immediately picked up an undertone about butts. "This time of year" being spring, ladies often start wearing skirts and shorts after mostly longer clothes in the winter (especially in Mass. where Randall lives), and the occasional "bun" sighting is in fact a recognized annual recurrence. I think it has a place in the explanation as at least a wink-and-nod double entendre. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 17:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This comic just doesn't make sense. Randall had some half-ideas, none of them worked, and he just drew it anyway. I thought I was missing the joke so I came here and nobody here has an explanation that is a) internally consistent and b) funny. -[[User:Foobarbecue|Foobarbecue]] ([[User talk:Foobarbecue|talk]]) 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:Not all of his comics are done for humor, some are simply absurd. I think this is one of those ones which is simply absurd. Unfortunately within the first few days of a comic coming out it is unlikely that the explanation here will be complete or have any form of consistent tone or style. It will be debated and edited back and forth. Some will be over analyzed to the point that any humor or consistency will be strained out of them. It is better to wait a week or so for the buzz around a new comic to die down. In fact, I usually avoid the newest comics but, I happen to like rabbits. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

'''Better Comparison'''

As discussed above (and as currently indicated in the discussion) wolves are not a good contrast to rabbit social behavior. Can we think of a better one? I know many bugs, like termites, ants, and bees are all hierarchical, but I think we should choose some sort of vertebrate at least. Some suggestions of my own; Lions, Lemurs, Horses, can anyone else think of anything? Or should we find a way to reword the sentence altogether? [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 00:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: has this got anything to do with the iOS game currently the free game of the week in the app store, King Rabbit? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.219|162.158.34.219]] 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"King Bun" sounds like a World War 2-era euphemism for a Kaiser roll. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.68}}

As for Slavic word for rabbit meaning "Little King". I'm Czech myself, so I looked around for the etymology; found something on Czech wikipedia (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%A1l%C3%ADk_dom%C3%A1c%C3%AD#Etymologie), posting translated for your consideration:
(King - "král"; Rabbit - "králík", "-ík" can be used as a diminutive suffix, for example with "kůň" - horse, "koník" - little horse)
What does a rabbit to do with a king? Nothing, actually, but the words are still related. As rabbits were not native animals in Bohemia, our ancestors didn't have a name for them. When first rabbits were brought to Bohemia from Germany 13th-14th century, we also got their German name "das Kaninchen", a corruption of the Latin word "cuniculus". Because of phonetic similarity, the word "Kaninchen" was mixed with "Königchen", the diminutive form of "der König" - king, and the Czech word "králík" was born. {{unsigned ip|141.101.95.43}}

Czech and Russian are quite alike indeed. But in Russian there is no way a word for rabbit (кролик) be read as 'Little King', these aren't omonims either. For 'King' there's a word "Король" [kɐ.ˈro.lʲ] if you will use appropriate diminutive suffix, which is "-ёк" [ʲɵk] , you will end up with "Королёк" [kərɐˈlʲɵk] - 'kinglet' (a bird of Regulidae family) that is not a bunny, although it's really small too. Same as male horse - "Конь" [ˈkonʲ] belittles to word "Конёк" [kɐˈnʲɵk] and has a second meaning - 'roof skate'.
Well, one may combine russian word "Кроль" [kro.'lʲ] meaning either 'male rabbit' (depricated) or 'crawl' swimming style (modern), with diminutive "-ик" [ˈʲɪk] suffix and result will be "Кролик" [ˈkrolʲɪk] - 'Bunny' but in case of second meaning that's simply a pun.
So no, not in Russian, as source word was Polish "królik" which was formed same as Czech "králík". {{unsigned ip|141.101.80.35}}

At the risk of adding to the noise, I assumed the joke was in the course name: confusing the study of "mammals" with the study of "memes". Everything being taught is a memetic concept (in the modern sense of the word, at least). It seems the path of least resistance in terms of making the smallest change to turn an understandable scene into an absurd one. Randall uses this format a lot (i.e: the entire scene & meaning being changed simply by changing one key word). He's very punny. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.156|108.162.249.156]] 00:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to this comment thing hold your horses.
I was seeing bun as used in an online sort of "omigod look at the bun" kind of usage. Honestly, visit tumblr for a few minutes, search the tag #bun, everyone uses bun for bunny, rabbit, hare, etc. The hierarchy I thought was to be based on cuteness level, as the smaller the bun, the more bun is respected in these online circles, or by anyone, really. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.111|162.158.255.111]] 02:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Behold, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon_rabbit cinnamon bun]. [[User:Nyperold|Nyperold]] ([[User talk:Nyperold|talk]]) 23:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My belief is that she was in a classroom during an empty period, but some people were sent there mistakenly for the mammology course...perhapps Black Hat's doing. So she decided to go with it. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The king bun in panel 3 looks exactly like the one from [https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2916:_Machine#xt=0&yt=79 Machine], anyone else notice that? [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 19:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:More correctly, the one in [[2916]] would be the one looking like the one here in [[1682]]. There are a number of "cut'n'paste candidates" out there. They kay have been redrawn (you'd have to do a pixel by pixel analysis) but clearly inspired to use a past character-pose as an 'object' graphic in the likes of Machine or [[Garden]] or [[Throw]], or a handy personal-joke ''actual'' direct copy elsewhen. (Might be interesting to track down such (near-)duplications and their origins in a listz somewhere.)
:BTW, funny link you gave, there. For internal explainxkcd links, use [[]], like <code><nowiki>[[9876: Comic Title]]</nowiki></code> (or <code><nowiki>[[9876]]</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>[[Comic Title]]</nowiki></code>, if prepared to quote+reference just the redirected page to the former), or <code><nowiki>[[9876: Comic Title|actual link text]]</nowiki></code> if you want something else. The <code>[URL]</code> and <code>[URL actual link text]</code> format is for external things without another handy method (such as xkcd.com linking, or wikipedia, etc, which have other handy formats, here mostly being local templates that you can probably work out if you look around a bit). FYI, as I think I've seen you not realising this before. But general heads-up to other random readers/editors, even if you don't. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.57|172.68.186.57]] 10:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

2962: President Venn Diagram

2024-07-23T11:05:08Z

172.68.186.57: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2962
| date = July 22, 2024
| title = President Venn Diagram
| image = president_venn_diagram_2x.png
| imagesize = 445x398px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Hard to imagine political rhetoric more microtargeted at me than 'I love Venn diagrams. I really do, I love Venn diagrams. It's just something about those three circles.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by 2,382,203 Massachusetts write-in ballots for Randall Munroe - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{notice|This whole comic contains just one opinion as interpreted by [[Randall|the comic's author]] about someone who, at the time of writing, is just one possible candidate amongst various others.
Please do not add anything to the main article that might be your own personal political opinion, and take similar care when making changes. This is not a rolling-news channel or debating room. Consider that readers in weeks/months/years to come, ''including yourself'', might understand or interpret contemporary 'facts' in a completely differently manner.|image=warning!!.png|**NB. This warning should probably remain for as long as Harris is candidate(-presumptive) in both Democratic and 2024-Presidential terms. Once this process concludes, one way or another, then the comic explanation is more safely subject to considered hindsight. Or perhaps now an ongoing incumbancy/positioned to await 2028, with a different pace of political advocacy/discountenance that might need a different form of warning.}}

On the Monday that this comic was published, US Vice President {{w|Kamala Harris}} became the new presumptive {{w|Democratic_Party_(United_States)|Democratic Party}} nominee for the 2024 election, having received endorsements from a majority of Democratic state delegations; the day before, President {{w|Joe Biden}} had ended his re-election bid and endorsed Harris.

This comic features a three-way {{w|Venn diagram}} (which [[2721: Euler Diagrams|is also an Euler diagram]]). The three circles represent qualification for US presidency, eligibility for US presidency, and love for Venn diagrams:

# '''Good President:''' The dominant Internet topic of conversation when this comic was published was Harris and people's opinions about her, and Randall personally thinks she'd be a good president but that he would not be.
# '''Eligibility:''' According to Article II of the {{w|U.S. Constitution}}, someone is {{w|President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility|eligibile for the US presidency}} if they are a natural-born citizen of the United States, are at least 35 years old, and are a resident in the United States for at least 14 years. Both [[Randall Monroe]] and Harris meet these qualifications.
# '''Vocal Venn Diagram-philia:''' Harris' affection for Venn diagrams is something of a meme, and has been used by her in her campaign [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kamala-harris-campaign-memes-gen-z-b2583802.html]. Randall is also known for his love of Venn diagrams, which feature heavily on xkcd. Randall especially loves Venn diagrams ABOUT Venn diagrams, like this one.

The title text [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWR2uTfrh-k quotes Kamala Harris on her affection for Venn diagrams], and implies that the best way to target Randall with political ads is to mention how amazing Venn diagrams are. Since all the other sections of the diagram do not have any identified members, it is possible that the area of 'Good President' that does not overlap 'love of Venn diagrams' is null, and Randall cannot imagine someone who does not love Venn diagrams being a good candidate for President.

Randall has previously supported a presidential candidate in [[I'm With Her]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A Venn diagram with three circles. 
Upper left circle: "Eligible to be President" 
Upper right circle: "Would be a good President" 
Lower circle: "Unusually vocal about love of Venn diagrams" 
Intersection of all three circles: "Kamala Harris" 
Intersection of the upper left and lower circles: "Me"

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Venn diagrams]]
[[Category: Politics]]
[[Category: Elections]]
[[Category: Comics featuring politicians]]

Talk:1292: Pi vs. Tau

2024-07-19T09:40:37Z

172.68.186.57:

It should be known that in the tabletop miniatures game Warhammer 40k, the Tau are a race of technologically advanced humanoids, although I would be surprised if this has any meaning in relation to the comic.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.247|162.158.74.247]] 18:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Pau is somewhat less conveniently, but more accurately, approximated as (401-sqrt(2)*phi)/200.

I started an explanation. Hopefully others will help improve it, as I don't think it's quite adequate. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.174|199.27.130.174]] 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The comic currently shows the symbol π (pi) in all three cases, but it should have the symbol τ (tau) in the rightmost case. I'm sure there is a compromise symbol "pau" too. Maybe with a deformed left leg? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.4|141.101.97.4]] 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WolframAlpha gives
<pre>
4.5545743763144164456766617143366171162404440766665105335330776311513504520604364524762740226212061363100001776216741750712622557020442741544760057441760026766230424023460366047331305225241275347777145543054127636365666430221066167347236617261603127725745513663702031155234027041040155322217227723576660045156156303357534162372112340027743775672417274565277274565735325624457113522164166560115654407251403563246444122664066521461311773474046032763760765740133706761276420415672577471077133607673035331070364705651055376634161405567176532346433567731715723623721267302576735154761375545411215522177775706407470673020025353246535120744232706060324711633457720155013202527060250466252665661576165164140301645132275526153126363575631176312270212441433434206352313125326760006365710744276056412434626534152021052065172556442150110056601034116570607064550553636566432544260105637423220411372664024454234201642615033200331506013362432026775605543212342336511350621361642654426372425415023071413764173735461042064323757413414533013..._8</pre> which does indeed have four 666 sequences. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.254|141.101.99.254]] 08:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This number contains 7777, 000 and 444 twice, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.11|141.101.93.11]] 09:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrote the transcript, not sure if I explained the visual well enough, so I left the incomplete tag if someone else has a better idea. Should suffice for understanding however, considering the content [[Special:Contributions/108.162.248.18|108.162.248.18]] 08:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

----

People should be made aware that pau is a slang for dick in Portuguese. {{unsigned ip|188.114.98.34}}

(The discussion about different results was trimmed)

Wolfram gives the result with 666

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.5+pi+octal
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022
</pre>
The Unix arbitrary precision calculator gives the result without

$ echo "scale=200; obase=8; 6*a(1)" | bc -l
<pre>
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257
</pre>
Any suggestions how we can check them?

"Randall says so" is probably correct, but insufficient :-) {{unsigned|Mike}}

:Please use the <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tag for this long numbers.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Testing Wolfram Alpha with <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8 in decimal</pre> and <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000_8 in decimal</pre> both indicate the approximation is only accurate to a limited degree.
<pre>
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal
</pre>
<pre>
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal
</pre>

The method I used to get the value I put in the text was; I used the following command to generate my approximation:
<pre>echo 'scale=200; obase=8; a(1) * 6' | bc -l | tr -d ' \\\n' ; echo</pre> which outputs<pre>
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257
</pre>
In 'bc'', a(1) is arctangent of 1 (i.e. 45 degrees, or pi/4); (pi/4 * 6) should be equal to 'pau'. I additionally checked the result using base 2 encoding, and converted each three bit binary value into an octal value. The decimal value of pi (using a(1) * 4) matches with the value of pi to at lease 1000 digits.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.86|173.245.54.86]] 09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Both Maxima and the GNU Emacs calculator output as the first 1000 octal digits:
<pre>
4.5545743763144164432362345144750501224254715730156503147633545270030431677126116550546747570313312523403514716576464333172731124310201076447270723624573721640220437652155065544220143116155742515634462136362517441011077702611156024117447125224176203716336742057353303216470257662666744627534325504334506002730517102547504145216661211250027531716641276765735563341721214013553453654106045245066401141437740626707757305450703606440651111775270032710035521352101513622062164457304326450524432531652666626042202562202550566425643040556365710250031642467447605663240661743600041052212627767073277600402572027316222345356036301002572541750000114422036312122341474267232761775450071652613627306745074150251171507720277250030270442257106542456441722455345340370205646442156334125564557520336340223313312556634450170626417234376702443117031135045420165467426237454754566012204316130023063506430063362203021262434464410604275224606523356702572610031171344411766505734615256121034660773306140032365326415773227551
</pre>
This also agrees with the first 220 digits of the previous result (last two digits above are 57 vs 61 here, maybe due to rounding when converting to octal). Again, no 666 within the first 200 digits. The Wolfram result deviates from this at the 18th digit already. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Also e+2 does not contain the substring '666':
<pre>echo "scale=200; obase=8; e(1) + 2" | bc -l</pre>
<pre>4.55760521305053551246527734254200471723636166134705407470551551265170233101050620637674622347347044466373713722774330661414353543664033100253542141365517370755272577262541110317650765740633550205306625</pre>--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

: A sudden flash of realization: are we getting nerd-sniped here?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.168|108.162.254.168]] 11:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

::Not unlikely. Have posted this as a trivia. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

: The claim is clearly about e+2, making Dgbrt's comment closest to the right direction. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

When I take Wolfram alpha's octal(pi*1.5) I get the first 303 (base 10) characters as this:
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022106616734723661726160312772574551366370203115523402704104015532221722772357666
</pre>
200(base 10) is 310(base 8) so in the fist '200' characters, 666 shows up 4 times (5 if you count 6666 as twice?) [[User:Xami|Xami]] ([[User talk:Xami|talk]]) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

: The Wolfram result is what you get when you calculate pi*3/2 in decimal, round to 14 digits after the decimal point and then convert to octal. That is, 4.7123889803846910 converted to octal. Definitely, this won't give you 200 digits precision. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
:: It lines up too perfectly to be a coincidence. It fits all the requirements: has 666 four times within 2008 digits, and although 0000, 222, 444, and 7777 appear, they only appear once as a run. You can't double count 7777 as two 777's because it is a single run. If WolframAlpha doesn't give the correct precision, it is likely that Randall made the same error. --[[User:RainbowDash|RainbowDash]] ([[User talk:RainbowDash|talk]]) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Being τ, tau, is already being expressed in terms of π, pi, it shows bias. (Though I think Pau would lead to some interesting spherical geometry equations. ~~Drifter {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.214}}

The bias is worse than that: From the perspective of π, the discussion is about multiples of π, so (3/2)π (that is 3π/2 = 3τ/4) is indeed the compromise between π and 2π. But from the perspective of τ, the discussion is about fractions of τ, so the compromise between τ and τ/2 is τ/(3/2) (that is 2τ/3 = 4π/3). Maybe we can call this ‘ti’ (or ‘tie’, pace 173.245.53.184 below). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both compromises are wrong. (3/2)π is the arithmetic mean of π and τ, while τ/(3/2) is their harmonic mean. But for geometric ratios (which these are), the appropriate mean is generally the geometric mean (hence the name). You can see how even-handed this is: it's (√2)π = τ/(√2). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I am in favour of just calling it ti(e). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.184|173.245.53.184]] 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

There are real world uses to both Tau and Pi: Pi is the number that relates to what you get when you measure a circle (the distanced around divided by the distance across); and Tau is get when you draw a circle (the distance around divided by the distance from the center). It is the difference between a mic (aka "micrometer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer ) and a protractor. Tau might have some mathematical advantages in both 2D and 3D in that it has no integer attached to it to find either circumference (2D) or surface area (3D) which makes radians and solid angles simpler. However, that advantage is lost in other dimensions and for the area of a circle.

Pau, of course, has a 61% chance of going to the dribbling spheroid hall of fame. (ref: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gasolpa01.html ), to which neither Tau nor Pi can hold a candle.~~Remo ( [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.183|199.27.128.183]] 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) )

---

The differences between Wolfram and BC really bothered me since I have used both for precision calculation in the past. The long and short of the matter, having done most of the maths 'long hand', BC is correct, Wolfram is wrong, and sadly, Randall was also wrong. It seems as tho Wolfram is rounding pi*1.5 to around 15 decimals but leaving the 9 repeating before converting to Octal.

If you take the output of octal(pi * 1.5) and paste it back into the input like so:
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777_8
</pre>
Wolfram gives you back (converted to decimal):
<pre>
4.71238898038468999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
</pre>
If you give that same input to BC and ask it to convert to decimal you get:
<pre>
4.712388980384689999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999992894219160392567888
</pre>
If you do the math long hand out to 55 decimal places, pi * 1.5 equals:
<pre>
4.712388980384689857693965074919254326295754099062658731462416...
</pre>
Converting that by hand into octal is a bit of a pain, but if you do, at the 18th decimal place where BC and Wolfram differ you end up with the following:
<pre>
0.000000000000000183697019872102976583909889841150158731462416... is your remainder to be converted so far
0.000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625 = 8 ^ -18
</pre>
Wolfram gives the 18th decimal as 5, BC as 3. I can't see 5 going into 18 5 times, but 3 times fits nicely.
--[[User:DarkJMKnight|DarkJMKnight]] ([[User talk:DarkJMKnight|talk]]) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Wolfram is simply using floating-point mathematics, presumably the IEEE "double precision". Interestingly, this is not the first time floating-point maths has been a problem; in [[287]], a similar problem caused an unintended trivial solution. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
* On second thoughts, there's no indication that he used Wolfram Alpha; as with [[287]], it simply could have been a Perl script (or Python or pretty much any programming language). [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

How can 200 be octal and then mean 310 decimal???
If 200 were octal, that would be 128 decimal, so we would end up writing 128 decimals.
Of course 310 octal is 200 decimal, but taking 2008 to mean 31010 is plain crazy, even if it's the only way to make it fit the "four times 666" constraint!
What am I missing here? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.149|173.245.53.149]] 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This Mathematica code searches for the pattern 666 in the octal expansion of 1.5 pi:
<pre>digits = RealDigits[3*Pi/2, 8, 10000][[1]]; Select[Range[10000 - 2], Take[digits, {#, # + 2}] == {6, 6, 6} &]
{279, 326, 495, 496, 3430, 3728, 4153, 6040, 7031, 7195, 7647, 7732, 8353, 8435, 8436, 8575, 8768, 9008}</pre>
These positions start counting with the leading "4" as position 1. It does not occur in the first 200 digits, but occurs 18 times in the first 10,000 digits. Many other digit combinations occur more times in the first 10,000 digits, including "123" (23 times), "222" (21 times), and "555" (26 times). Note that "xkcd" converted to numbers (a=1, b=2, etc.) is 24, 11, 3, 4. The combination 241134 first occurs in 1.5 pi at digit number 250,745. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|talk]]) 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this filled up fast. Is it time to remove the Incomplete tag yet? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:Please do your adds at the bottom. Otherwise it looks like as the first discussion here and everybody will ignore your comment.
:My answer is: NO. We still have to figure out if Randall is wrong or just using an algorithm nobody does understand right now.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Someone said there's no indication that Randall used Wolfram, and that double-precision IEEE numbers in mostly any language would cause the same error.
This is not true: IEEE double precision numbers (binary64) are stored internally in binary.
Converting them to octal would give at most 18 nonzero significant (octal) digits, and from that point on all additional digits would be zeros (remember that an octal digit is equivalent to three bits).
What Wolfram does is rounding to a decimal number, which is not round in octal.

I think the previous is an indication that Randall did indeed use Wolfram.
Added to that, he used Wolfram in several what-if's, and in one case he used it so heavily that his IP got temporarily banned from Wolfram.
This leaves little or no doubts in me that Wolfram is the source of Randall's mistake.

Also, I still would like to know why everybody is interpreting "200 digits" as "2008 digits" and pretending that's equal to "31010 digits" instead of "12810 digits".

And out of curiosity, what happened with [[287]] and floating point numbers?
The explainxkcd for 287 says nothing about floating point.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
* With [[287]], there was only meant to be one solution, the other solution was unintended. It's mentioned in the discussion only, not in the body of the explanation, but there's a link to an interview where he indicates that it was indeed unintentional. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 07:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

;What is the period of the wolfram answer?
What is the repeat period of the octal answer with the 666's, (the length of the repetend) i.e. the one that comes from Wolfram, that is converting 4.71238898038469 decimal to octal? And how many 666's are in the full repetend? Oooh - I like that new word - thanks to {{w|repeating decimal}}! [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:Dunno, either Randall uses WolframAlpha whithout further checks, so he has to check his sources, or we all are just dumb.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

: The period is 4882812500. Yes, what I mean is that it repeats every 488281250010 digits. Not sure I want to count the number of 666's in there. Oh, and thanks for the answer about [[287]], I've seen it now. -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.139|173.245.53.139]] 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I hardly dare to ask now... ;)
*What is an octal expansion?
*This explanation cannot be complete before someone explains what this actually means, to someone who have never herd of octal expansion before (like me)
[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
:You are absolutely right, the incomplete tag is back. It seems only math geeks were working here but it should also be explained for people with less knowledge on math.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

:*The wikipedia page for {{w|Octal}} contains a complete explanation. I wrote a plainer one but mine is still very long, so instead of posting it here I uploaded it [http://www.jojonete.com/00/20131121_Octal/ there]. It's very crappily formatted and not thoroughly checked as I don't have time for more at the moment, but I might improve it some other day. Please note that the only reason for not posting it here is its length, and in particular it has nothing to do with copyright issues. I mean, everybody feel free to copy, rewrite, summarize, expand, correct, destroy or do whatever to that text with no attribution, just as if it had been posted here. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::The explain for non math people should be much more simple. Randall likes simple English, I like simple Math. Not everything is covered but more people will understand the essentials. While I like all that details many people don't. We still do need an simple Math explain here.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::I know and I agree, that's why I kept my explanation out of this discussion. My summarizing skills are just not good enough. I used the time I didn't have to reformat my explanation, but that just means it's now a bit longer than it was. I hope someone else will write a much shorter and simple one, as I just seem to be unable to do so. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks for a great explanation. I knew about this system but only for integers. However, still need a word on how to get pi in Octal. Until anyone does better a link could be posted for your explanation! [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

::::I added the conversion part to the explanation, it's in the same link. Still way too long to post here. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.117|173.245.53.117]] 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that pau is Catalan for peace, which is a good solution for the pi/tau dispute. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.150|173.245.53.150]] 00:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

:Has posted this as a trivia item. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The trivia that states that e here represents Euler's Constant, and not Euler's Number, seems to be false, is it not? e+2 being ~4.71, not ~2.58. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.11|108.162.237.11]] 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
:I have removed that sentence. It was simply wrong. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

4/3*Pau=Tau, 2/3*Pau=Pi, therefore, It can have a practical use.--[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 10:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear DgBrt, Please leave the explain as it is. It's "way too complex" for a reason. And the Title Text does in fact need its own header (it's not the only title text to have earned it) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 19:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:Hello 199.27.128.65, please post new comments to the bottom. I did revert your revert because you didn't solve any of the remarks by me. And the title text EXPLAIN could be done easy: Explain that comparing e and and pi is nonsense and explain the mistake done by Randall when using Wolfram Alpha. Everything else belongs to the trivia section. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::OK, we need to get the admins in here before we end up in a revert war. We already explained the intentional error from Randall, which is why it's in the explanation and not the trivia section. It CAN'T go in the trivia section because we're EXPLAINING what the error is. You don't put long explanations in the trivia section, you put them in the explanation section. THAT'S why the title text is getting its own header. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::All right, I've submitted a request for the admins to help up. No idea when they'll get here, but it should help smooth this big mess out. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::: [[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests#Potential_Edit_War.3B_we_want_to_resolve_it_before_it_starts Here's what they've said so far]]. What do you think Dgbrt? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 04:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::::After a week I haven't been here I still can say: calm down. My reasons are still at the incomplete tag — just read it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Let's run through your arguments:
:"non Math people should also be able to understand this." I'd say the other editors did a pretty good job of that; that's the ENTIRE REASON we have an explain.
:"Randalls mistake has to be emphasised" They were. Read the explaination again.
:"everything else here is still too much, it even doesn't belong to a trivia section" But should the explanation not be as complete as possible? You underestimate just how nerdy we can get here.
:I have to side with the mods. I think this explanation was done and you're holding out for an impossible edit that will never come. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
::I will work on this, but it needs some time because I don't want to remove any of the great findings here. Non math people DON'T read all that number talks. They don't know what wolfram alpha is and that this site is sometimes WRONG. That has to be clearly explained.
::Furthermore this is NOT a nerd sniping by Randall; it's a nerd sniping ON Randall. He did use the result by wolfram alpha by error, he did figure out all that wrong "666" appearances, while he otherwise is very accurate on math.
::My idea is: Extract the essentials for the title text and add a paragraph like "Math details", "Background", or however to the bottom of the explain. In effect non math people would not read this paragraph but they can understand the essentials, other people would be happy about the deeper explain.
::I don't want to delete content, I'm just looking for a better presentation to the public. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
:::The amount of research Randal does, it's far more likely he made the mistakes on purpose in order to nerd snipe, as opposed to "he just made the mistakes on accident."
:::I agree with you on the wolfram alpha part, though, and I like your idea to summarize the errors before exploring them in full detail
:::Sorry for being so antagonizing before. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:Just a comment here, as a non-math person, I understood all of this perfectly well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.72|108.162.221.72]] 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

;Tone of "Title text" section
The [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1292:_Pi_vs._Tau&oldid=66351 current] tone of the title text section is inconsistent with the rest of this site. Where else does this wiki say, "Math is hard! It's not worth your time trying to understand the concepts here."?

''It consists of some of advanced trigonometry and other assorted college-level concepts that will in all likelihood just bore you if you don't care about them already.'' Really? There is not even any elementary trigonometry involved here, other than the value of PI itself. And since when is advanced trig a college level course? What is involved is the concept of bases other than base 10, specifically octal, but that is also a secondary school subject, both in mathematics and computer science.

I propose the following outline of the section:
*State that the property given in the title text does not actually hold for 1.5 * PI, but that due to an early rounding error, it might look as if it holds when shown via Wolfram Alpha. Further state that it is not clear if Randall, in relying on Wolfram Alpha, made a mistake, or if he is partaking in nerd sniping.
*Show how close Pau is to e+2.
*Explain octal -- base 8 -- first for integers, then for fractions.
*Present the actual octal expansion and show that the property does not hold.
*Explain why the Wolfram Alpha answer is different.
*Present the Wolfram Alpha answer, and show how the property [almost?] holds with that value.
*Depending on how self-referential we wish to be, explain how it might have been a plausible mistake for Randall to have relied on Wolfram Alpha, but that if it was a case of nerd sniping, then it was highly successful.
*Mention the similarity to the Feynman point.
This wiki is about explanations. We shouldn't bemoan a subject as being more difficult than it is; we should explain. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.43|108.162.219.43]] 22:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

:We should have two different paragraphs here:
:*The standard explain, containing the essentials like shown by 108.162.219.43 just before.
:*A "Deeper into math" one, going into more depth.
:*The "Title text" header is wrong!
:My 2 cents --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
::I tried to fix my old "Title Text" header, what do you think? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.204|199.27.130.204]] 03:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

:::I did my first attempt on a simple explain. Please do not revert this, but I would be happy about any enhancements. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
::::That is actually way better. Sorry for not giving you a chance before. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.204|199.27.130.204]] 05:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

;ATM cell size?

Is it possible that this is also a reference to the compromise ATM cell size? Americans wanted 32 bytes of data per cell, to support DS0 data rates, IIRC. Europeans wanted 64 bytes to support their smallest telecom data rate (I don't remember the designation) and to reduce "cell tax" inefficiency. Neither side would capitulate, so they went with 48 bytes, which is worse than either for both sides. Diplomacy in communications standards at work! One step above "I'll take my ball and go home!" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.41|108.162.218.41]] 21:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

:That was the first thing that occurred to me! But I wonder whether Randall is that deep into such trivial communications technical details. Or should we expect him to know nearly everything about nearly everything? In any case, it's a great real-world example of an idiotic compromise, which he likes to lampoon. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.143.132|172.68.143.132]] 20:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that while Tau simplifies circumference calculations from 2*pi*r to tau*r, that it complicates area calculations from pi*r^2 to tau/2*r^2? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 16:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The number 666 comes from the biblical explanation of alliances that are other than godly: "the number of a man," according to Wikipedia. The scripture it comes from doesn't mention the devil. Popular culture may be making it a reality the same way made up words become socially acceptable according to dictionary writers.[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 14:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would argue the 666 appears twice, and 6666 appears once, and that occurence of 6666 is two more occurances of 666: digits 0 through 3 and 1 through 4. He didn't say anything about them being distinct times. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.91|173.245.48.91]] 21:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy Pi Day! I know a measly 118 digits. I should try harder [[User:625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8|625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8]] ([[User talk:625571b7-aa66-4f98-ac5c-92464cfb4ed8|talk]]) 14:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

why not use both pi and tau? [[User:Sci0927|Sci0927]] ([[User talk:Sci0927|talk]]) 17:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

fun fact: https://www.piday.org/pi-facts/ links to this page on Explain XKCD <noinclude>([[1292]])</noinclude> for fact 10! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.210|172.69.70.210]] 18:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Bumpf
:Interesting. But that whole list needs rewriting so that it doesn't look like a list of different (often overlapping) facts coming from different people, without reference to each other. and the second bit to item 21 is... yeah... means nothing.
:But hello to anyone who follows the link here! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.127|172.70.86.127]] 20:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Pau" also happens to be made up of the first letter and the last two letters in "Portmanteau". And "Pau" could be one of the shortest portmanteau words. [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 21:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been here for almost a year. Today is "e day" in the United Kingdom. Pi day is three days later. In the United States, Pi day is celebrated on March 14. [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 07:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC
:What a lot of... Today, in UK, is 19/07, nothing like 2.71828, and in three days it is 22/07 which doesn't match 3.14159 at all. 3rd of January can be 3.1, 31st of April can be 3.14, neither as 'neat' as March 14th being 3.14 (the only possibly useful and true aspect in that whole post, including the edit comment/reason for making the contribution). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.57|172.68.186.57]] 09:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Useful ways to calculate pau ===

Pau = (-1/ζ(-1)) * (1/1/3 + 1/5/7 + 1/9/11 + 1/13/15 + 1/17/19 + 1/21/23 + 1/25/27 + ...)

(provided by [[User:ColorfulGalaxy]]) [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 11:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)